Cargando…
Differential COVID-19 infection rates in children, adults, and elderly: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies
BACKGROUND: Debate exists about whether extra protection of elderly and other vulnerable individuals is feasible in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the relative infection rates in the elderly vs the non-elderly and, secondarily, in children vs adults. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
International Society of Global Health
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9850866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36655924 http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.06004 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Debate exists about whether extra protection of elderly and other vulnerable individuals is feasible in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the relative infection rates in the elderly vs the non-elderly and, secondarily, in children vs adults. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of seroprevalence studies conducted in the pre-vaccination era. We identified representative national studies without high risk of bias through SeroTracker and PubMed searches (last updated May 17, 2022). We noted seroprevalence estimates for children, non-elderly adults, and elderly adults, using cut-offs of 20 and 60 years (or as close to these ages, if they were unavailable) and compared them between different age groups. RESULTS: We included 38 national seroprevalence studies from 36 different countries comprising 826 963 participants. Twenty-six of these studies also included pediatric populations and twenty-five were from high-income countries. The median ratio of seroprevalence in elderly vs non-elderly adults (or non-elderly in general, if pediatric and adult population data were not offered separately) was 0.90-0.95 in different analyses, with large variability across studies. In five studies (all in high-income countries), we observed significant protection of the elderly with a ratio of <0.40, with a median of 0.83 in high-income countries and 1.02 elsewhere. The median ratio of seroprevalence in children vs adults was 0.89 and only one study showed a significant ratio of <0.40. The main limitation of our study is the inaccuracies and biases in seroprevalence studies. CONCLUSIONS: Precision shielding of elderly community-dwelling populations before the availability of vaccines was indicated in some high-income countries, but most countries failed to achieve any substantial focused protection. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (available at: https://osf.io/xvupr) |
---|